The Rebuttal

When I was a kid I got in trouble with the police. I was 8 years old. Mum and Dad had gone to work and it was school holidays. I woke up in the morning, brushed my teeth, had my Coco Pops and I was gone. Fun was to be had, the sun was shining and there was no way that I was going to stay inside. I met Tim and Simon up at the Gully. The Gully was a sharp crevice that we climbed down. There we had all sorts of fun. We caught lizards and many was the time that my mother would scream at me to “GET IT OUT”. Sometimes Tim would bring his mini motor bike. Tim would ride and I would sit on the back. We would race around the paddocks. Many a time we fell off, the grazes we brought home were a sight to see. Tim’s parents and Simon’s parents were at work too. Like mine they just left them to their own devices; just as long as they were home in time for tea.

Being boys we got up to all sorts of mischief. Life as a boy would not be life if we did not. On the fated day that we got in trouble with the police we were bored. The motor bike had broken down and we couldn’t find any lizards. We decided that we would climb an olive tree. These olive trees grew along the side of Nelson Road. They were enormous things with ripe and squishy olives. Don’t ask me why but Simon spotted a lorry coming up the road, he dashed down the tree with a ripe squishy olive and threw the olive at the passing lorry and it went ‘SPLAT’ all over the side of the lorry. This sent Tim and I into fits of mirth. We were boys after all.

So it became a challenge. We would sit up the tree, dash down, throw our olives and if we hit the cars we would dash up the tree and hide. Every time we hit a car or a lorry we would scream in jubilation. This went on for about half an hour. Tim spotted a near new Cortina coming up the road. Down the tree he dashed and let fly – ‘SPLAT’ – the over ripe olive burst and oozed all over the passenger side window. Tim dashed up the tree out of harms way.

But this time the car screeched to a halt. A little old lady got out and she was furious. (In truth she was probably only about 40 but 40 was OOOOLLLLLDDDD) She stood in front of our tree, hands on hips and screamed her rage, “What do you think you are doing?”, She raged, “Do you want to kill someone?”  For some reason, up on our lofty perch, we all answered in unison; as if she was a school teacher, “No miss!”  She pointed at us, “You, you and you, get down right now!!”  Down we came, heads bowed in shame.

“Right” said the old lady taking out a pen and pad from her car, “Name and address please.” We all could have given her a false name and address; I mean she would never have known. But in our fear we blurted out our names and addresses which she wrote down diligently onto her pad. “You’re parents shall be hearing from the police and I hope you are all suitably punished!”  At that she was gone.

True to her word she reported us to the police. That evening the police visited our homes and had a chat to our parents. My father was furious and gave me an almighty whack on the backside. I was grounded for the rest of the holidays. That was punishment indeed. And although I could have gone out during the day when my parents were at work and they would never have known I did as I was told. After all what I had done was stupid and that was the consequence.

This was 1973. This would not happen today. Eight year old kids home alone? SHOCKING! Roaming the streets alone! SCANDELOUS! Climbing down gullies and climbing up trees unsupervised! GAAAAASSSP. Catching lizards? What if they got BITTEN! But this was an age when kids were kids and kids had fun. Today kids are marshmallows to the ninth degree.

As a parent today I despair. My kids cannot do anything. They go to soccer training which is just over a kilometre away from home. They are not allowed to walk home alone. The coaches won’t let them. The coaches will make them wait at the ground for their parents to arrive. My eldest kid was made to ride his bike to and from training when he was 12. Apparently he tells me the other parents would OOOOHH and AHHHH and say how disgraceful it was that he was made to get home on his own. If it rains and the ground is a bit muddy they call the games off because, “Its not safe.”.  I remember the mud-baths we played on when we were kids. Not one game was ever postponed. After the game we would find the muddiest part of the ground and all dive in head first. It was fabulous fun. I despair for what our kids are becoming, I really do.

When I was seven I caught a bus to Adelaide on my own to meet my mother for doctor’s appointments. I went to the city with my ten year old sister to watch Bambi, I didn’t cry when Bambi’s mum got shot, honest, I just had water in my eye. We were independent. My parents would prepare me, “Now you catch the 502 at 11.30. Just tell the driver you need dropping off near the Forum on O’Connell.” And we did that many a time. I would catch the bus on my own to Rundle Mall, go down Hindley street and play the games at Downtown. The place would be packed with kids. Not any more, kids are wrapped in cotton wool!

“Once upon a time in New York City, it wasn’t a big deal if pre-teen kids rode the subways and buses alone. Today, as Lenore Skenazy has discovered, a kid who goes out without a nanny, a helmet and a security detail is a national news story, and his mother is a candidate for child-abuse charges.”  So begins the story on the American Today show website. I raised my arms to the heavens and screamed,  “HALLELUJAH”,  when I read it. I screamed because out there, there is a parent like me. A parent that wants their kids to learn life skills to get on in life. Life skills are certainly not something that kids will learn living in a cocoon.                                                                                       ( source: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23935873/ns/today-today_news/t/mom-lets–year-old-take-subway-home-alone/  )

What struck me about this article is that it pointed out that far from being more dangerous today; the world is actually a safer place. Said Skenazy, “The era is long past when Times Square was a fetid sump and taking a walk in Central Park after dark was tantamount to committing suicide. Recent federal statistics show New York to be one of the safest cities in the nation – right up there with Provo, Utah, in fact.” Yes that’s right, New York, that place where you supposedly get mugged just walking out the front door, is one of the safest cities in America. But the problem is that the parents have convinced themselves that the world is a more dangerous place today. It is, in fact, not the case. Skenazy believes that, “The problem is that people read about children who are abducted and murdered and fear takes over”  Skenazy simply doesn’t think fear should rule our lives. Inevitably though, it does.

I insist the WORLD is safe. It is no more dangerous today than it has ever been. Skenazy, for her trouble, got labeled a child-abuser and an irresponsible parent. She didn’t even give her kid a mobile. She gave him some coins and said if he were to get lost to call her from a public phone. What an arse!  So incensed was she that she embarked on her own research. She approached the public and asked them this simple question, “What if you wanted your child to be kidnapped by a stranger and held overnight? How long would you have to leave him or her outside and unattended for that to actually happen?”                                                                                                                                ( Source: http://stats.org/stories/2009/land_free_home_scared_sept2_09.html  )

Skenazy notes that kids are actually safer today than they were in the seventies. In fact the chances of your kid being abducted ar approximately 1 in 1.5 million. The world has gone insane. Skenazy tells stories of a school bus being evacuated because there was a single peanut on the floor. She tells stories of kids being dropped off at their door by the school bus rather than  a designated bus-stop. Worse the kids are not allowed off the bus unless they are met by a parent.

If you think it is any different in Australia, think again. Just last week a school was in the news because it banned kids doing handstands and cartwheels for fear of injury. God forbid what they would have done in the seventies when kids hung upside down on monkey bars and ate their lunch just to see if they could actually swallow while hanging upside down.

What society is doing with this ridiculous protectionist attitude is stealing kids of their childhood. It is creating a “Marshmallow State” where kids simply do not know how to take risks or initiative. Skenazy believes that the world is losing “perspective.”  People now make assumptions and the assumption is always negative. We see every person as a potential abductor or paedophile says Skenazy, “ …until proven otherwise.”

And that is the world that we have created. We have created a world where everyone is assumed bad instead of good. We have created a world where fear dictates our every decision. Mostly this hysteria has been created by a media that is hell bent on reporting every negative occurrence that they can almost to the exclusion of anything else. Despite what the media will have us believe statistics actually show the world is generally SAFER today.

For the record; how long would it take your child to be abducted if you left them outside?  Answers that Skenazy received ranged from ten minutes, an hour and right up to three months. The answer is approximately 750 000 years. I kid you not. I don’t know about you but personally I will take the risk!

I attended a conference last week. Some expert was talking about deafness. He was a good expert too. He has been around for many, many years and has knowledge of deafness that is right up there with the best in the world. I left the conference strangely subdued and headed to the pub.  As I drank my beer I analysed what I was feeling. I realised that I was feeling a little uncomfortable because I had just spent the day listening about how deaf people were “deficits”. You see deaf people have deficits and lots of them.

They have a deficit of hearing. They have a deficit of self esteem. They have a deficit in employment outcomes. Their mental health is deficit; in fact it is twice as bad as the general populace. Deaf people have a deficit of money because they have poorer employment outcomes. Consequently people who are deaf are more likely to be in poverty. The stress of life and poverty makes people who are deaf become ill more often. And so it went on. The learned speaker reeled off one deficit after another. It was depressing.

I guess to fix something you have to know what is wrong. If you are sick you cannot begin to be treated until you identify what’s wrong so that a plan of cure can be implemented.  Likewise if you have no money, you have to know this and get to the root problem of why you have no money. Only then can you begin to fix the problem. The car breaks down you have to find out what’s wrong so you can get the right part and replace it. Knowing the deficit is important. The problem in deafness is that we seem to focus almost solely on the deficits and not on the successes and solutions.

Deficit mentality in our Society is rife. It is particularly well documented in education. Gorski from the George Mason University describes Deficit Mentality as, “approaching students based upon our perceptions of their weaknesses rather than their strengths.” Gorski believes that the , “most devastating brand of this sort of deficit thinking emerges when we mistake difference—particularly difference from ourselves— for deficit.” And so it often is with deafness or any marginalised group. (Source: http://www.edchange.org/publications/deficit-ideology-scornful-gaze.pdf )

Now Gorski’s view of deficit mentality is one where society highlights the deficits of others to create compliance. The compliance assumes that there is a set way of behaving and to differ from that “accepted” behaviour is deficit. Deficit mentality focuses on stereotypes. For example the Government asserts that people with a disability have a right to work. But the Government also asserts that there are people with a disability who are a “cost” to society because they draw pensions which is a large part of their policy direction to get people with a disability into work.

Now of course the circumstances for each individual person with a disability being out of work are varied. But rather than look at these varied issues the interpretation that people make of people with a disability drawing on a pension and not working is that they’re a burden to society, or worse – lazy. The focus is on fixing the deficit rather than viewing people with a disability as an employment asset. Rarely do we see our policy makers viewing people with a disability with an “asset” mentality.

Now the learned speaker at the conference had no intention of perpetuating a deficit mentality about deafness. He wanted only to highlight that the way society was structured meant that there were several negative consequences for people who are deaf.  He highlighted several issues such as poor mental health, poor self esteem and higher incidences of poor health. He pointed out that this was for a number of reasons but the underlying message that came across was that the lot of a person who is deaf is overwhelmingly a negative one. And that is the message that people take away that not only do deaf people have a deficit of hearing but they also have other deficits that include mental health and general health issues.

Now this is ok to a point. It is ok to highlight issues. It is ok to point out that without the right support people who are deaf face many battles. The problem is that this is almost all that we talk about. Audiologist and the medical fraternity talk about “lack of” hearing and focus on “fixing” with technology such as cochlear implants or hearing aids. Deafness is deficit and it is only by becoming hearing like the majority that a person who is deaf can become equal. Very little information comes forward about people who are deaf as assets or even that deafness itself can be an asset. People who are deaf are poor and lacking. No wonder I was feeling depressed.

Some how we need a focus on how people who are deaf can be assets and highlight their assets. In community development asset based approaches are common. Asset Based approaches focus on; 

• Appreciating and mobilising individual and community talents, skills and assets (rather than focusing on problems and needs)

• Community-driven development rather than development driven by external agencies

Perhaps it is time to develop further these “Assets Based” approaches to the field of human services. (Source: http://www.synergos.org/knowledge/02/abcdoverview.htm )

In fact this has already happened.  Dr Laura B Nissen from the Portland State University has written extensively on the topic of Strength Based approaches for working with troubled youth, particularly in the area of substance abuse. Nissen describes the Strength Based approach as a way of focusing on individuals, families and communities, “In light of their capacities, talents, competencies, possibilities, visions, values and hopes, however dashed and distorted through circumstance, oppression and trauma.”

Nissen explains further that the Strength Based approach is a way, “…to regard each youth, his/her family and community not only as person in need of support, guidance and opportunity, but also in possession of previously unrealized resources which must be identified and mobilized to successfully resolve presenting problems and circumstances.” Nissen describes how support for troubled youth tends to focus on, “….risk and probability of re-offending, the latter on disease models and relapse.” She explains that support to troubled youth does not, “… tend to include norms of regularly seeking out, amplifying and maximizing client, family or community positive qualities in the course of service provision.”                                                                                               (Source: http://www.cimh.org/contentFiles/Strengths%20based%20Approaches%20L.%20Nissen1.pdf  )

Nissen could be describing how we focus services and support to people who are deaf. She could be describing how we focus on what is wrong, how sad things are and what we must do to “FIX” these poor deaf people. Usually the focus is on finding ways to make people who are deaf fit with the norms. Very rarely do we focus on the positives and the attributes of people who are deaf.

Let’s try and turn this around and replace parts of Nissen’s quotes with “deaf”.  For example by focusing on Strength Based approaches in the deafness area we, “…regard each individual who is deaf, his/her family and community not only as a person in need of support, guidance and opportunity, but also in possession of previously unrealized resources which must be identified and mobilized to successfully resolve presenting problems and circumstances.” In supporting people who are deaf we should, “ … tend to include norms of regularly seeking out, amplifying and maximizing individuals who are deaf, family or community positive qualities in the course of service provision.”  As John Lennon sang, “ Imagine, its easy if you try.”   

Now our deafness sector overwhelmingly focuses on the negative. In fund-raising campaigns we have TV advertisements of a young deaf person holding his face and screaming because he his frustrated at being isolated in a classroom.   A few years ago there was the horrendous Cora Barclay Centre television advertisement. In this advertisement the Cora Barclay Centre filmed a young boy signing laboriously. His message was that in years gone by this was how he would have communicated and then in an almost sing song voice he exclaims, “But now their is a better way..”  Implying that sign language was a lesser means of communicating and that the only way to be part of society is to SPEAK.  The Hear and Say Centre, to entice people to donate, has the sickening, “Without your help Zoe’s Mum might never hear her say I Love You” As if only by SPEAKING can one express love. These examples are deficit mentality at it’s worst.

Some how in the deafness sector we need to change this around. We need to be discussing deafness and its strengths. Rather than focusing on the sad and the missing we need to focus on achievements and how these achievements came about. For a start, and I have said this often, people who are deaf are a thriving economy. How many people owe their jobs, cars, food on their table and houses to people who are deaf? Teachers of the deaf, audiologist, the massively rich company Cochlear, interpreters, captioners and so on. People who are deaf are no burden. In fact I would say that if any one needs to be grateful it is the people that benefit from the existence of people who are deaf.

How often do we focus our awareness and educational campaigns on successful deaf people and how they got there? Do we speak of the people who are deaf who have completed PHDs? Do we speak of the deaf lawyers, the chefs, the deaf Olympians, the teachers or the social workers? – Hell we even have people who are deaf who are audiologist. Do we speak of what they are contributing to our society? Do we highlight the life skills that they have developed to live their life’s deaf that go above and beyond the ability to hear? Do we highlight how their families nurtured them? Do we pass on this knowledge to other people who are deaf and their families so that they can develop similar skills allowing them to thrive within our society?

Unfortunately the answer is – very rarely. Our fund-raisers use emotional blackmail and aim for the heartstrings. Would fund-raising not be more effective to highlight what is possible with the right support? Our academics roll off statistics about all that is wrong with people who are deaf and what a tragedy that it all is. As far as I know, in Australia, there is only one academic who focuses on strengths and what deaf people can do to become SUCCESSFUL and functioning. That person is, of course, deaf and can’t even get a job in the deaf sector. In fact the sector won’t even utilise that person’s knowledge and skills in educating the public. The person is an asset going to waste.

 Jonathan Kozol is a human rights activist and author. He has written often of inequality in America, particularly among the African American population. Kozol also believes we focus too much on human deficits. Said Kozol of African American children living in poverty,  “Instead of seeing these children for the blessings that they are, we are measuring them only by the standard of whether they will be future deficits or assets for our nation’s competitive needs.”

And so it is with people who are deaf. By focusing almost solely on what is wrong, instead of what is right our Deafness sector perpetuates this mentality. It needs to change because as American actress and academic, Danica McKellar, states, “There are stereotypes that have been out there for a long time that tell girls that their main asset, the main thing that they are valued for, is their appearance and also that it’s to the exclusion of anything else. “ And this is what we do with deaf people we promote incessantly the stereotypes of deficit to the point where it becomes normalcy. It is anything but the case and the power to change this is with us.

Finally I bit the bullet. I gave Austar the boot. I had been dealing with Austar for almost a year to try and get them to improve their captioning output and quality with no great success. Austar is the company that provides Pay TV to rural areas. It basically provides Foxtel feed to rural Australia. With over 200 channels it has a variety of stuff to watch. Unfortunately very little of it is accessible with captions. So I called them and told them I wanted to switch it off. Put simply it was not value for money. It was no easy thing to do. With Pay TV being the only way that I can watch my beloved West Ham, now back in the English Premier League, I made the call with great trepidation. But it is done and as from September the 3^rd Austar will be history in our household.

Funnily enough it actually took longer to switch Austar off than it did to connect it. I called, got hold of an operator and said please switch it off. The operator then spent the next hour trying to convince me to stay on. “ But Mr Kerridge, is their anything that we can do to improve our service that will convince you to stay on?” I then spent the next ten minutes explaining to them that the reason I was switching off was because of the lack of captions. I explained that even when captions were provided that they were often poor quality. Captions were missing and that sometimes captions actually ghosted. Ghosting is when captions actually duplicate, where you get two lots of the same captions making it impossible to read.

“We can send out a technician to look at the problem for you Mr Kerridge.” At this I suggested that they check my file on the computer and have a look at all the communication that I had with them. I explained that they would see that there were a number of steps already tried that involved swapping set top boxes, moving the satellite dish, visits from technicians and so on. None of this, I explained to them, had made any difference.

“Yes I can see that this has happened. But Mr Kerridge what about if I reduce how much you pay by $20 a month to make up for the lack of access.” I explained that this was not going to be sufficient. I explained that unless they fixed up the captioning,  not only the amount of captioning but also the quality of captioning so that drop outs and ghosting did not occur, then$20 a month was not going to change anything. It simply wasn’t value for money. I suggested that if they would allow me to pay for Fox Sports only so that I could continue to watch West Ham play I might consider that. “I am sorry we cannot do that Mr Kerridge” It was worth a shot, you don’t ask don’t get!

“Mr Kerridge, May I call you Gary?” I said that was fine. “Gary, what if we change your package to suit you so that you are watching movies, would that entice you to stay?” I explained again that unless there were increases in captioning and the quality of that captioning that there would not be much point in doing this. The issue, I pointed out, was about more and better access.

“But Gary, I see you like the Lifestyle Channel and we could offer you the full package at no extra cost?” Of course at this stage I began to wonder whether it was I or the operator who was deaf because nothing seemed to sink in. I explained patiently that they had already offered me this for free but I found out that they actually, after a month, had started charging me for it as they had for the full sports package which they had also offered free. I explained that unless there was more captioning and better quality captioning then the answer was still no.

“Ok Gary, I see it is very frustrating. But do you like documentaries, what if we provide full coverage of all documentary channels at no extra cost.” I explained that there was not much point because nearly all the documentaries were not captioned . “Let me just check that for you Gary.” So I waited while the operator checked. Strangely there was no reply; instead she tried a different strategy.

“But Gary you do realise that Austar have committed to increasing captions?” I pointed out that I was indeed aware. I pointed out the exact figures they had agreed to increase captioning by in the agreed period. I pointed out that they had agreed to increase from 35% of content to 55% of content. I pointed out that sport was to increase from 5% to 15%. I pointed out that this had been endorsed by our friends at Media Access Australia with absolutely no input from consumers. I pointed out that increases were pointless without increases in quality to match. And finally I pointed out that combined it meant that I could access less than 50% of all content on Pay TV so perhaps a fair price for me to pay was 50% of the actual subscription and that I be reimbursed my subscription each month that I document where the captions screw up. (Yes I was a bit fed up by this time.)

“Oh Gary that is disappointing that nothing I can offer can convince you to stay with us we will proceed with your disconnection.” I said that I would stay if I could pay for Fox Sports only. It was my last effort to be able to continue to watch my beloved Hammers. “I am sorry Mr Kerridge I am not authorised to do this.” Now that I was officially unsubscribed I was no longer Gary, I was back to Mr Kerridge. Interestingly enough, even though I am deaf and it’s on file and although I have corresponded with them monthly for the last year or so and that they know to communicate with me either by email or SMS options, that after this phone call they still rang my voice line of my mobile four times. I rang back through the National Relay Service to see what they wanted. I was secretly hoping they were going to offer me Fox Sports. Sadly no, they wanted to know if I had changed my mind. The answer was still no.

I can’t make sense as to why Pay TV is being treated with such kid gloves in regard to provision of captioning. Indeed last year they made record profits of $598 million, an increase of 8.5%. This makes them the most profitable form of television in Australia. (Source: www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/09/foxtel-australias-new-media-titan-rakes-in-950m/  )

 In the same period Channel 10 profits fell 90.5%. In November 2011 Channel 9 was in such financial trouble that they had to meet with bankers to discuss debts of $2.7 billion. Channel 7 profits, which include newspaper earnings, were relatively healthy with profits recorded of $115.1 million.  Clearly Foxtel is out performing Free to Air TV but it has, for some strange reason, been allowed to get away with providing only 55% access to its programs through captioning. At the same time struggling free to air channels are expected to provide nearly 100% access to captioning. Something is very wrong here. And our friends at Media Access Australia endorse this, perhaps they would like to explain because I have no way of understanding the logic.  (Sources:  www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/financial-results/2011-preliminary-final-results.pdf  – www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3370129.htm – www.theaustralian.com.au/media/ten-reports-20-per-cent-earnings-slump/story-e6frg996-12261 )

As a snap shot of what Pay TV offers you I asked my 13 year old son Finlay, via Facebook,  to do some research for me. Finlay checked three of the choices on Austar and provided me with information on captioning access between 5 and 6 pm on Tuesday 21^st August. He looked at Documentaries and News which provided 34 different programs in that time slot and just 9 of them had captions. My maths tells me that’s a whopping 26.4% access. On Kids shows there were 10 programs showing and 8 of these provided captions at 80% access. On Lifestyle Channel there were 45 programs and 18 of those were captioned and this provided the deaf viewer with a fabulous 40% access to what was on offer. Deaf readers must all be salivating at the amount of access available because for the three options, in total, 39.3% of the programs that were offered had captions. And for this the deaf viewer is expected to pay full subscription. What a great deal hey?

So from 3^rd of September Austar is no more in our household. Somehow I will watch West Ham through seeking media streams through the Internet. I and my three lads will connect the Mac to the TV through HDMI and see if we can watch it through HDMI. The three lads are devastated. It gave them another excuse to do nothing but sit on there arses and this has been taken away. The missus is jumping for glee. She is not a TV lover, she is hoping we will all clean house more as a substitute.

Joking aside the amount of access that is being provided by Pay TV in Australia is a scandal. They are the most profitable form of TV yet are being allowed to get away with murder. They will lay blame solely on the channels that they beam into our homes. They will say it is the channels responsibility to provide the access and their hands are tied. Bottom line is that Foxtel provide and promote the package, it is their responsibility to ensure that what they provide as a service is accessible through the provision of captioning. Access to captioning must increase in both quantity and quality. Neither is being provided to the deaf viewer at present time. So my advice is to the deaf viewer – switch off and take your dollar elsewhere. To Foxtel my advice is – Lift your game, its not good enough. To Media Access Australia who provided advice to the decision makers and who endorsed the agreement where Foxtel could provide only a paltry 55% access I ask – What the hell were you thinking?!

In my house we have a wall of history. The wall has posters and photos of prominent human rights activist in history. We have Nelson Mandela – “There’s no easy walk to freedom anywhere”  and John Lennon with the words of the song ‘Imagine’ among others. My favourite is a smaller photo and one that I flogged from the Internet and had professionally framed. The photo is of August Landmesser. His is not a name that is well known but he was  German shipbuilder. In the photo he is at the launch of a Nazi war ship. He is in a sea of men all giving the Nazi salute. Landmesser in this photo has his arms folded defiantly and the look on his face clearly says “F*&k you.” Landmesser was angry, and not without reason. He had fathered two children to a Jewish woman and was being persecuted as a result. He and is Jewish wife were later jailed and his two children placed in an orphanage. It is people like Landmesser that remind me that patriotism is bunk!

“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” The above quote came from none other than Albert Einstein. Einstein hated nationalism. He saw nationalism as just blind faith where men just follow others like sheep without any autonomous thought.

There are those that will argue that nationalism and patriotism are different. The late Sydney J Harris, a respected American journalist, described the difference between patriotism and nationalism as thus, “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.”  But for Einstein there was no difference, “Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how passionately I hate them!” Einstein’s sentiments are clear. I agree with him whole-heartedly. 

Of course there are those that will mock Einstein. They will remind us that he, among others, developed the early science that led to the development of the Atom Bomb. Consequently the Atom Bomb was used to kill and maim millions of Japanese and bring an end to World War II. Einstein was said to have felt great remorse about this as he had written to the President Roosevelt recommending that the Bomb be built. It is said that five months before Einstein died he said, “I made one great mistake in my life… when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification – the danger that the Germans would make them.”  It is worth noting that Einstein was born in Germany and renounced his German citizenship in 1933. He did this in disgust at developments that were happening in his home country. He was not just a great mind but a great humanitarian who stood by his principles. (Source: – http://www.optimalmodification.com/whatdidalberteinsteininvent.html )

Let’s be clear, I was once one of those senseless patriots. I was born near the East End of London. In 1966, at the age of 2, my parents migrated to Australia for a better life. We were among a great influx of migrants and upon arriving in Australia resided at the migrants hostel in Wollongong. My father managed to obtain employment as a welder for Holden in Adelaide and the family moved there. We lived in the Northern suburbs of Adelaide which was, at that time, a kind of little Britain. I swear that at school the only Australian that I knew was an Aboriginal girl who had white parents, no doubt one of the stolen generation. My neighbours to the left five houses down to Goodall Road were all British. To the right a further, six houses down, they were all British except for one where Italians resided and who had the mandatory vegetable patch and glasshouses in the backyard.

My fondest memories are the FA Cup nights. In 1971 the FA Cup final was beamed live to Australia. Leeds beat Arsenal with a goal from Alan Clarke. In 1971 we went to the Holmes house to watch it. The Holmes were from Yorkshire, mad Leeds supporters and great family friends. There we had pie with mushy peas flavoured with mint. We had golden syrup dumplings for desert. You can’t get much more British than that.

Over the years I became a mad England supporter. My friends were also mad England supporters. When the England cricket team came to Australia to compete for the Ashes we all cheered them on. As a teenager I wore a Harrington jacket and a T-shirt with the Union Jack emblazoned on it. I was English and proud of it and I let the world know. This is not the case anymore.

Lets be clear. I still follow the English cricket team, I still watch the FA Cup, I am still English to my bootstraps, hell I was born there. But I follow England now not from a sense of pride, but more simply because once you pick a sporting team you stick with them. To be honest I follow what ever team Australia is competing against be it Pakistan to Wojohnistan. It is kind  of fun being in the minority. I follow the English sporting teams in the same way as people who follow their football team – through thick and thin. I follow West Ham United in the English football. Let me tell you following West Ham is heart breaking, they rarely win anything. But lets be honest, what is there to be proud about for having been born in England? Nothing really, it was just the card that fate dealt me. But there is a hell of a lot about England to make me feel ashamed.

England, like most of Europe has a history of greed. Systematically, for hundreds of years, England sought to plunder the world for as much of its wealth as possible. From America to Africa to India to Ireland and to Australia (to name a few) England set on a path to systematically plunder the world. It certainly is nothing to be proud of. They did so under the guise of, ‘best intentions’ but as the historical website Crawfurd.dk notes, ” Some of the worst things imaginable happened with the best of intentions ..”  For the English these ‘best intentions’ were in the guise of civilising the natives and introducing (forcing) them to accept Christian values. The truth is really that they wanted to get rich and quick and woe betide any natives that stood in their way. Of course England are not alone in this. Other European countries like the French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese had the same aim with equally tragic consequences.

England did so under the guise of patriotism and imagined superiority. Waving the English flag and pretending that what they were doing was for ‘the good’ of everyone while stealing resources that they had no right to own, England caused great harm. Particularly to the ‘natives’. Put simply England stole countries and killed the original inhabitants either through violence or by introducing disease. The Australian Aborigines, the American Indians and the black populations of Africa all suffered or died in England’s quest for a ‘better world.’ It is not something for which anyone can be proud.

In the last four hundred years there have been many, many incidents of genocides that have been attributed to the English. For example as the result of the Cromwelian wars in Ireland 200,000 women and children starved and 12,000 were sold into slavery. In the colonisation of America many millions of American Indians were slaughtered or sold into slavery. In the second Boer war in Africa 30 000 Boer women and children died in concentration camps. Closer to home 15 000 Tasmanian Aboriginals were killed or died of diseases introduced by the English, wiping out the entire race of Tasmanian Aboriginals. To this day Australian Aboriginals are a displaced and dispirited people largely as the result of the English. White Australians, mostly of English descent, continued this destruction and oppression through the White Australia Policy and the stolen generation. In all it has been estimated that over the last 400 years England has been responsible for the deaths, displacement, torture or raping of over 50 million people. Proud of my country? Not at all but I do feel a sense of real shame. (Source – http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1098555/pg1 )

I write this as a sense of patriotism is sweeping the world as the result of the Olympics. In a good natured kind of way countries point out that they are superior simply on the weight of medals that they have one. If they did not win more than another country the patriots will argue that “per head” they won more medals than anyone. In an effort to demonstrate superiority rich countries pump billions into sport to come out on top at the Olympics even though this money could be better spent on the homeless or the disabled. Others use drugs and questionable training methods, bordering on cruel. And all because they want their country to be seen as THE BEST.

I don’t feel a sense of patriotism about the success of England in the Olympics. I am just in awe of the performance of individuals. I am in awe of the speed of Bolt. I am in awe of how the body can contort and jump as it does in the gymnastics. I am in awe that a marathon runner can keep a pace of almost 20kph for 2hours. I am in awe of Oscar competing with the able bods with his prosthetic legs. These are the achievements of human beings. The country they came from is not important.

Most of England’s coaches were Australian apparently. Australians, by and large if they are not the original and real owners of the country, descended from British stock. The athletes that won so many medals for England were primarily black and they descended from Africa mostly. The Australian cricket team has a South African coach and the English cricket team a Zimbabwean one. The English cricket team also has a smattering of South African batsman. No one really cares about their country or origin just as long as they can take part and hopefully win. For many it is just about how much money is on offer.

What I like to be proud of is the talent and ability of PEOPLE. Who cares where they come from, we should be proud of what they have achieved. They and us should be proud that they have talent and that they have developed it to the maximum through sheer hard work. We should be proud of people like Mandella, Mother Theresa, Fred Hollows and the millions of people that seek to make a better life for those that fall on hard times. It is all about the people whatever country they are from. And for this reason I say it again – Patriotism is bunk.

In 1978 I gave up. I had struggled with my hearing loss in a mainstream school for four years. Academically my results were rock bottom. Psychologically I was a mess. My self esteem was shot. It all came to head when I was caught wagging school. I had not been to school for two weeks. What I would do is catch the bus to school and head off to the shopping centre. There I would remain until home-time. I would not be able to this today. Kids only have to have a day off and the schools are on the phone to find out where they are.

I came home one day after touring the shopping centre to be confronted by my mother. “How was school?” she asked. I lied and said it was fine. “Is that right?”, queried my mother, “Then why did the school call me at work to tell me they had not seen you at school for two weeks?” The cat was out of the bag.

I basically broke down and confessed that I was not coping. I told my parents I needed to go to a deaf school. At that time I thought deaf schools were like an institution. Recently I had seen the movie on Helen Keller, The Miracle Worker, I had visions of rat infested old buildings and cruel superintendents. I imagined I would be like Oliver in Oliver Twist, begging for more food.

This was the catalyst for me to become enrolled at school that supported the “Hearing Impaired”. This was a mainstream school with a unit within it that provided support for students with a hearing loss. Believe it or not, after four years with a hearing loss, attending this school was the first time I had ever met another person, young or otherwise, who had a hearing loss.

I was immediately fascinated. Deaf kids at the school actually signed. Initially I would sit on the steps and watch them. Gradually I introduced myself and began to learn finger spelling. Some were more oral and I naturally tended to mix with them because I could communicate with them. But as my signing became, “better”, I began to talk to some of the, “others”.

It must have been painful for them. I probably finger spelled 80% of what I said. What I signed was a cumbersome form of signs in English and sloppy finger spelling. (My finger spelling has not improved to this day.) But I was persistent. I would try to tell them jokes. They all looked at me as if I was some maniac. Nearly all my jokes involved word plays and puns. Of course for the majority of these deaf kids such word plays were meaningless.

I noted with interest that many of the students appeared to have literacy issues. They wrote in a strange sort of broken English. While it made sense, the grammar was all over the shop. The spelling was terrible. The level of written discussion was very basic and child-like. This made no sense to me at all. These kids were deaf, not intellectually disabled. It puzzled me as to why they had such poor literacy.

This was perhaps my first introduction to members of the Deaf community. As I became older I began to attend the Deaf club on Friday nights at the wonderful old 262 building in Adelaide. One of my earliest memories of the Deaf club was attending a youth group function. We met outside of 262 and caught the bus up to Monash Adult Playground on the Murray River. I had just turned 18. I remember sneaking off and having a beer at the pub over the road. Coming home and snogging with some cute young deaf girl at the back of the bus made it a trip to remember.

In those early days I met many wonderful Deaf people who have remained friends to this day but I was always struck at the diversity within the community. There were some deaf people that were very bright and I naturally struck up a rapport with these people. I remember the first night I attended the Deaf club. I was surrounded by Deaf people firing any number of questions at me. “When Deaf you?” – “Deaf you how?” – “School where?” –“Family Deaf or hearing?” This inquisition was perhaps my first introduction to Deaf culture. I learnt that when a deaf person comes to the Deaf community for the first time establishing the origins of the deafness and association with the Deaf community was par for the course. From Australia to England to Denmark the inquisition has been the same for me the world over.

But always I was struck by the diversity. There were the well adjusted “Deaf” people and there were the “Deaf” who were linguistically challenged. Then of course there were the Deaf who were linguistically proficient in sign language but who had only rudimentary English literacy. This always fascinated me. What was the cause of such linguistic diversity? Why was the spectrum of human development among the community so different? I wanted to know.

There were those that were severely deaf, those that were profoundly deaf. There were those that were oral and who would have their ‘oral’ conversations in the corner. There were those that were fiercely proud of their Deafness who spoke of history and culture and oppression of sign language. There were the sports groups that brought everyone together regardless of linguistic ability. If you could bowl or hit the ball to the boundary with frequency you were in the cricket team. No one cared if you couldn’t structure an English sentence or linguistically you were performing the same as a 9 year old.

BUT it all fascinated me. I wanted to understand why linguistically and intellectually there were such extreme differences among the Deaf community. I read on the subject voraciously. I remember watching a very early video on Deaf history that had been made by Paddy Ladd in England.

The video told the story of deaf education. It told of the French educator Siccard, of Clerc and Gallaudet. It told of how in the past sign language had been embraced as a means of education and as a result there had been deaf lawyers, teachers, doctors and the like. It told of Milan in the 1880’s where educators of the deaf decided that sign language was out and oralism was in. It told of how this oppression almost led to the destruction of sign language and the Deaf community. It told of how ‘oralist’ would wheel out their ‘success’ stories while keeping the ones who oralism had failed, (of which there were many), behind closed doors. It explained how as a result the education and development of deaf kids was severely impacted. I was appalled.

I read When the Mind Hears by Harlan Lane. As an academic Lane is oft criticised for being biased but he told an eloquent and harrowing story of oppression and how this impacted on a generation of deaf kids. I learnt very quickly that Deaf adults who had Deaf parents were generally better adapted and linguistically superior. I learnt that deaf kids given access to sign language and good sign language models earlier were better adapted and performed better academically. I learnt about age and onset of deafness and how this impacted or assisted with linguistic development.  I learnt how parents and professionals persisted with oralism, even when it was clear it was failing the child. Nothing hit home to me more than reading Oliver Sacks book, Seeing Voices, where he described deafness as a preventable form of intellectual disability.  Slowly I began to understand why there was such linguistic and developmental diversity among the Deaf community. The oppression of sign language and the inability of professionals to see the wood for the trees was leading to a generation of ‘Intellectually limited” deaf people that was, for the most part, entirely avoidable.

And then came the cochlear implant. In the early days of the cochlear implant the Deaf community was vocal in its objection. This was entirely understandable. The Deaf community had been subject to any number of failed experiments. Oralism had failed many. Cued speech was cumbersome and clumsy form of communication. Signed English was an appalling failed experiment. The Deaf community had seen it all before. Attempts to make them ‘hearing’ had failed. The Cochlear Implant was another attempt and they were having none of it.

Predictably early responses to the cochlear implant from the Deaf community were emotional even violent. The Deaf community were particularly vocal about early implantation calling it child abuse. According to the Deaf community it was the child’s right to decide. The child should not have an invasive cochlear implant imposed on them.

I remember one well known advocate being interviewed on TV for one of the morning shows. The advocate had apparently come upon evidence that the cochlear implant had led to paralysis of some deaf recipients. In the ensuing confusion the Deaf community thought that some unfortunate recipient had become wheelchair bound. What had actually occurred is that the cochlear implant, in a few cases, had led to facial paralysis owing to a nerve being damaged in the operation.

Ironically the cochlear implant has become the face of the new Deaf community. It is probably fair to say that many in the Deaf community saw the cochlear implant as a threat. For them the cochlear implant was going to make potential members of the Deaf community ‘hearing’ and as a result, over time, the numbers coming into the Deaf community would reduce. This would  gradually lead  to the death of the Deaf community. From my observation this has not been the case.

Young people with cochlear implants appear to still be seeking out the Deaf community. The cochlear implant is an amazing piece of technology but it does not cure deafness. While it appears to assist the recipient when the communication environment is ideal it has its limitations. Large groups and noisy backgrounds still present problems. Individuals with cochlear implants still experience the same issues as deaf people of the past. In large groups they are isolated, communication is difficult and conversation hard work.

What this means is that many young people with cochlear implants seek out other deaf people and this ultimately leads them to the Deaf community. Often it is sport that brings them together. At the recent Australian Deaf Games in Geelong it was almost as if every other participant had a cochlear implant.

Recently I attended the Deafness Forum Summit in Melbourne. Now Deafness Forum are hardly a bastion of the Deaf community. However, there were a large number of young people who had cochlear implants who attended. In between sessions you would notice them all gathering to talk. Some spoke and some signed but still, even with cochlear implants, deaf people sought each other out.

Rather than become a threat to the existence of the Deaf community it could be argued that young deaf people with cochlear implants have changed the make up of the Deaf community. These young Deaf people are different from those first Deaf people that I met all those years ago. My observation is, and lots of people are not going to like this, that they are linguistically superior to many Deaf people I met when I first entered the Deaf community..

To me it is undeniable that the cochlear implant is far superior to simple aided hearing. From what I am observing, young deaf people implanted earlier are developing much better spoken language than in the past when I first entered the Deaf community. Consequently they have better literacy and are performing better academically. I have no research to back this.  It is purely observation from having met many of these young people professionally and through the Deaf community.

But still the cochlear implant can not overcome all the barriers to social participation. Still these young people seek out other deaf people to share like experiences and for ease of communication. While I am sure the cochlear implant helps in many ‘hearing’ social situations young deaf people with implants are, increasingly, becoming members of the Deaf community. The difference now is that many of these young people have normal language development, normal literacy and are very savvy of their needs. The diversity of linguistic and intellectual development that I first noticed when I entered the Deaf community has now narrowed. One might argue that it is now almost non-existent among the younger generation.

With this change has come a change in values. Recently, for example, there was a Facebook debate about the relevance of Deaf Australia today. Deaf Australia is, of course, the advocacy organisation that represents Auslan users.  Increasingly Auslan users are becoming people with cochlear implants who have learnt Auslan as their second language. What this means is that their needs are different. While many of them will chose to access Auslan Interpreters for study or work others appear to prefer communication support through Live Remote Captioning. There are indications that many prefer English structure for their communication support. Technically though, because these people are members of the Deaf community and use Auslan,  they are represented by Deaf Australia.

This group of Auslan users also have technological needs. They need maintenance on their implants. They need batteries for their implants. Some need implant upgrades and rehabilitation. Perceivably there are some young kids with implants whose parents have decided that Auslan is beneficial to their linguistic development that require early intervention.  Perhaps in the future this will be provided by the NDIS.

In the past Deaf Australia simply represented mostly Auslan, interpreters, telecommunications and captioning. The question is; Have Deaf Australia moved with the times to meet the needs of this new young group of people entering the Deaf community who require representation on a variety of fronts including technology? It’s easy to say that is Deafness Forums role. But is it? Particularly given that this new breed of Deaf community members are “Auslan Users”

Indeed we have a situation where Deaf adults who have been brought up in the Deaf community have decided to have a cochlear implant later in life. The reasons are varied. Some do it for professional reasons, others so that they can hear their kids and some do it simply because they want access to sound. Deaf adults are having Deaf kids and deciding to provide these kids with implants so that they have the best of both worlds. The Deaf community has changed forever.

Like it or not the cochlear implant is now part of the every day issues relating to the Deaf community. The question we need to ask is whether our representatives at Deaf Australia have kept track with the change. Are the issues that they represent relevant to this new breed of deaf Auslan users with cochlear implants. The times they are a changing and perhaps the time has come to change with them.

Graeme Innes, Disability Commissioner for the Australian Human Rights Commission, is a wee bit upset this morning. We know this because he has been active on Twitter and Facebook letting people know he isn’t pleased with the current state of progress with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Mr Innes tweeted, “Australians are ashamed we’re 27th out of 27th in OECD for correlation between disability & poverty” (sic)

This was one of many comments Mr Innes made throughout the morning. He made a call to Australia’s political parties to stop the political games and get on with the job of rolling out the NDIS. This was all in response to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting that had spent the previous day discussing the roll out of the NDIS. To the surprise of no one State Labor Governments were forthcoming with state funds to support Federal Labor in its roll out of the NDIS. On the other hand Liberal State Governments refused to come to the table. Prime Minister Gillard probably did not help things by egging the Liberal Governments on when she appeared on the ABC current affairs show, Lateline.  “We’ve put  $1Billion into the kitty even though times are tough but the Liberal Governments will give NOTHING.”, she wailed, or words to that effect. She had a point but such is my cynicism about politics at the moment that I only see her comments as an attempt at political point scoring.

But Gillard and Innes were absolutely correct when they both stated virtually the same thing. In doing so one wonders whether they are scheming on this together, although Mr Innes is supposed to be entirely neutral of any political influence. But anyway this is what they both said, “It is unacceptable for people to be only having two showers a week, or leaving their house several times a year.” Sadly this is indeed the case for many. It is for this reason that Australia is rank last among all OECD countries when it comes to disability support. To be precise Australia is 27^th of 27 nations. Innes believes this is Australia’s shame.  It is, but does mainstream Australia really care? Who outside of the disability sector is really following this debate?

The NDIS was introduced to much fanfare. It brought with it much hope for people with disabilities. It is now rapidly descending into farce as our political leaders use it to score political points, either by trying to show that that they are champions of disability or by trying to embarrass opposing members of the political spectrum. They all support the NDIS they say but at the end of the day, instead of finding ways to make it happen, they are playing politics and squabbling over money. The needs of disability seem to figure very low in the priorities of the debate. Sadly as a result the NDIS is at an impasse.

Originally the NDIS was supposed to have been self-funding. It was supposed to have been a similar scheme to Medicare. The idea was that a percentage of everyone’s salary was paid to fund it. The argument for this was that everyone at some stage had the potential to acquire a disability. People can be born with a disability or they can acquire a disability from accident, disease or simply from aging. Through the NDIS a levy would fund everyone with a disability, whether it was acquired at birth or later in life. As it stands now, the system is not equal. If you have a car accident and acquire a disability your third party insurance provides you with a payout to fund your needs. But if you acquire your disability through illness or an accident in your garden the situation is very different. It is different in a sense that you may have no easy access to support funds unless you had adequate insurance.  An NDIS was supposed to be able to provide for all people with a disability, regardless of age or circumstances that the disability was acquired.

In its wisdom the Government has discarded the idea of such a levy. They have done so because they believe that disability is CORE business of the Government and therefore should be funded from general tax revenue. This is not an argument I understand because, arguably, health is also core business but we fund much of our health needs through a Medicare levy. The more cynical among us, of whom I am one, might see the shift away from the introduction of a levy as the Government, and opposition, shying away from introducing another tax. Like it or not a tax is essentially what an NDIS levy would be.

We still do not know what an NDIS will entail. The buzz word in early debates about the NDIS was that it would be self directed. Funds would be allocated and the person with a disability would allocate these funds to meet their needs. Those that lacked the capacity to direct their own funding would receive support to do so. This has now changed too. The word ‘funding’ is no longer used instead we are hearing the term ‘entitlement’

Now there is a big difference between ‘funding’ and ‘entitlement’. Self directed ‘funding’ is actual access to the money and directing this money to purchase services and support as required. The word ‘entitlement’ means that you are allowed a choice between options that are classified as ‘entitlements’. What this means is that, if the Government has its way with the NDIS, there will be a list of ‘suppliers’ that you are ‘entitled’ to choose from. The suppliers will be services, probably already out there, who are eligible to be used under the NDIS.

The Government wants this because it will prevent people using family members as support people. What the Government does not want is a person with a disability receiving their funds and directing these funds to family members to provide their support. Or individuals with disabilities might, for example, want to advertise for a support person, interview individuals and decide on people who they are comfortable with to provide their support. The Government does not want this either. There is to be no such choice or flexibility – You will only be able to choose from a list of ‘entitlements’ provided by eligible ‘suppliers’. If you think the NDIS meant autonomy, as in full control, think again. It will be nothing of the sort.

And the word disability is bandied about as if it means all people with a disability. It is clear in these early stages that this is far from the case. Debate is almost entirely about people with disabilities who have care needs. These needs include showering, feeding, getting dressed or support to get out and about. The needs of these people figure prominently in examples of how the NDIS will help that are given by our politicians. Gillard and Innes last night and today spoke of those ‘two showers a week’ people. They spoke of those people who can only, “get out of their house several times a year.” This has been the pattern throughout the NDIS debate.

There is no question that these individuals are and should be a priority in the initial stages of the NDIS roll-out. However, what is not clear is whether these individuals are the only people that the NDIS will focus on in the long term. If you look at the steering groups that have been established by the government to assist with the roll-out of the NDIS they are heavily weighted with representatives from physical disabilities and carers groups. The Deaf are wondering what is in it for them. The blind are wondering what is in it for them. What of people with mental illness? It is not clear when, or if ever, the NDIS will actually cater for groups of people with a disability who do not need personal care and support. If you are a deaf person and thinking of putting your hard earned savings to your retirement fund or next holiday because the NDIS will pay for your hearing aid or cochlear implant upgrade, well that retirement and holiday may have to wait a wee bit longer.

The Government persists in using the term ‘significant disability’. This is a deliberately vague term that allows them to classify the types of disability that can be supported through the NDIS. I have yet to see a definition of the Governments understanding of ‘significant disability’. As I have said, I have no problem in the initial stages of the roll-out of the NDIS with those individuals who have pressing personal and care needs receiving priority. However, if these are the only people that the Government is targeting with the NDIS then the Government needs to come clean now.

The NDIS roll-out is definitely a case of ‘Nero fiddling while Rome burns.’ While the Government and the opposition play political football with people who have disabilities the NDIS remains in limbo. Not only are people with disabilities not having their most basic needs met but the crucial issues of the structure of the NDIS and eligibility for the NDIS remains in limbo. The real shame is that political survival is being put before real need … People with disabilities deserve better than that!

There are long periods in the history of any society during which certain basic questions lead to deep and sharp conflict and it seems difficult if not impossible to find any reasoned common ground for political agreement. (John Rawls, taken from Justice as Fairness) Rawls could be talking about almost any community big or small. Communities have conflict and often there is seemingly no resolution to them. The Deaf sector is no exception, conflicts abound. There is conflict about captioned cinema where opinion is divided between financial gain, self preservation,  liking, loathing and acceptance of CaptiView.  Recently Deaf Football Australia and Deaf Sport Australia had a very public stoush on Facebook that is ongoing. The recent article from The Rebuttal highlighted differing views on effectiveness of the Kangan Auslan courses. Disputes are seemingly everywhere. We all seek ‘fair’ resolutions. But I wonder sometimes if I, or any of us, really understand what ‘fair’ is.

My parents are of good British stock. One of their core values is fairness. They ingrained into me that fairness was paramount. To them everyone is an equal and everyone should get a fair go. Sadly, I don’t always meet these lofty standards and neither did they. Largely in my work I am motivated by fairness. Whether it’s helping the intelligent young deaf woman in South Australia take on the Teachers Registration Board because they are placing unfair restrictions on her or whether it’s ensuring the young kid with mild cerebral palsy gets a fair run out in the Futsal team I coach … Fairness is at the core of what I do.

But fairness is relative. One person’s fairness is another’s unfair. It is very hard to find the balance. Often to find the balance of fairness two people have to come to the table. Imagine two kids. They have a piece of cake. They have to divide it fairly so each gets an equal piece. Anyone who is a parent will tell you that asking kids to decide what is equal is fraught with danger. You can bet if the parent cuts the cake one of the kids will moan, “but his bit is bigger”  

But there is a simple solution. If you are a parent and are confronted with this dilemma what you need to do is divide responsibility. First you get one kid to cut the cake and second you get the other to choose the piece he wants. I can almost guarantee that the kid that cuts the cake will cut it as equally as he possibly can so as to not be cheated. The kid that chooses the piece can’t complain either. It’s a win, win. The outcome is ‘just’ for everyone.

This win, win situation is so hard to achieve. As a writer I write about things that I perceive as unfair. I have a view that the captioning system, CaptiView, is unfair. It spoils the viewing pleasure, the font is small and yucky green, your eyes get strained, you miss bits of the movie when trying to read the captions, kids lack the coordination to use it and so on.

Now certain people think it is not fair that because many people don’t like the system, that because of this that they should miss out on captioning and access to movies. It gives them access and they don’t care how, just as long as they get access. The cinemas don’t think this view is fair either; after all they are spending the money on the system and doing all the work to introduce the system. How dare we be ungrateful? To each their argument is valid and the contrary argument is unfair. The result of these differing opinions of fairness is heated arguments and an ongoing dispute.

In most cases the people involved in the disagreements are, by and large, decent people. BUT they are being torn apart because they cannot find a FAIR solution that’s suitable to all of them. In the case of the CaptiView issue everyone that I have met in the campaign is a decent person. We all agree access needs to be better, the only thing that we cannot agree on is an acceptable solution. Because we can not agree we, particularly me, have been tearing strips off each other. Hell, I have encouraged haters of CaptiView to give our Peaks the middle finger. My wife, for daring to suggest something contrary, got told to “shut up” on the Action On Cinema Access Facebook page. Everyone is at loggerheads. There has to be a way forward.

Philosopher Angie Hobbs, writing in the BBC Today website, states that decisions aimed at fairness that cut into “dignity and rights of the individual will, therefore, not be fair.” She further highlights that there is often tension when decisions are based on, “the greatest good of the greatest number.” An example of this is where deaf people have become very angry In the CaptiView debate where it has been suggested that open captions will upset the majority of viewing patrons and therefore cannot be considered. The logic and method of this argument causes friction because the dignity and the needs of the deaf have been trampled upon. Without evidence I may add. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9079000/9079254.stm )

I have been researching fairness and have come to the conclusion that fairness is bunk. Mainly because, as Rawls states in his theory of Justice as Fairness, “we are naturally more concerned with our own aims and interests—which include our interests in the interests of those nearer and dearer to us—than we are with the interests of strangers with whom we have few if any interactions.” It is this self interest that often prevents resolution to conflict and has never been more evident than in the CaptiView saga. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/#CirJus )

What we need to do is to somehow overcome this self interest and come up with a solution that is ‘just’ and incorporates the rights and liberties of all. We can’t get hung up in arguing what is fair. It’s fair that I work hard and earn good money but it is certainly unfair that billions of people the world over are starving to death simply because they were born into severe poverty. How is it fair that 81 % of the world’s wealth is in the hands of 54% of its population while the remaining 44% have just 19% of the wealth? There are 2.735 billion people who are surviving on less than $2 a day and they could be alleviated from poverty, according to American humanitarian Thomas Pogge, if just 1 percent of that 81% of wealth were directed towards them.  This is a ‘just’ outcome, not necessarily a fair one. One percent of 81% of the wealth is not going to make the rich poor but it will feed and provide a better quality of life for billions of people. Sadly self interest is preventing this from happening.  (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/events/userfiles/file/LawPhilosophy/Fall%202008/Pogge%20World%20Poverty%20and%20Human%20Rights.pdf )

Clearly focusing on what’s fair is getting us nowhere because one persons unfair is another’s fair and visa versa – we need to find another way forward. We need to find a solution like the kids cutting the cake that will satisfy us all. Rawls in Justice as Fairness suggests resolution can be achieved if, “some underlying basis of philosophical and moral agreement can be uncovered” If this is not possible Rawls believes that political differences can, “at least be narrowed so that social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens can still be maintained.”

The problem with the CaptiView dispute, (and probably every other dispute in the Deaf sector.), is that all the parties involved are only thinking of their own need. Each will dispute this but this may be the actual reality. The cinemas want as little outlay financially on the solution as possible with minimum disruption to the general viewing patron. Our peaks perhaps are basing their strategy on currying favour among Government representatives. The Government wants to ensure that the dispute does not backfire and make it look silly in public so is trying to pacify everyone. The Action On Cinema Access group want choices of access without seriously taking onboard any of the views of others because they want quality viewing pleasure. Supporters of CaptiView just want access and don’t really care that many cannot tolerate CaptiView because it offers them access to the cinema. As far as I can see, and all will dispute this, none are really working to establish common ground. They are all just frantically pushing their own agenda.

What is lacking, to steal Rawls words once again is, “social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect.” Self interest reigns and no one is really making an attempt to come to understanding of the viewpoints of others. I accept that some of the articles I have written in The Rebuttal have contributed to this divisiveness but the fact remains that until the parties involved come to the table and, as much as they possibly can, put their self interest aside to develop mutually beneficial and ‘just’ solutions everything will remain at an impasse.

Whether this is The CaptiView saga or the Deaf Football Australia and Deaf Sport Australia dispute the way forward is to look for ‘JUST’ solutions based on mutual respect and cooperation. Let’s start again using these principles and see if we can all find a way forward for a ‘just’ solution, not necessarily a fair one.

What we see below is a response from one of the staff of Kangan who has lost their job as the result of the staff cut’s. It’s a very passionate view and we print this here with permission.  In the comments section some of the issues raised have been responded to. We believe that in this saga it is important that people see all sides of the story and we are not beyond critisism. Further, we also believe that by openly seeing all sides of the coin people can become more open and discuss things and issues without fear of reprisals. Please do feel free to Rebut The Butt at any time!

ERIN’S VIEW

I was directed to your posting yesterday and after a great deal of thought would like to comment.

I am one of the three Kangan Auslan and Deaf Studies staff who was most recently made redundant. My last day was Friday, June 26. And I am devastated. The other two staff members finish at the end of this week. The remaining teaching and administration staff will all find themselves redundant before the end of this year. For anyone who has ever found themselves in this position, I extend to you my sympathy because as we are all discovering, this is a time of profound sadness, upheaval and uncertainty.

I was lucky enough to work within this department of remarkable professionals for a very brief six months while the two staff who will depart Friday has each invested more than 20 years of their lives educating the hundreds of students who have undertaken Auslan and Deaf Studies courses over more than two decades. I was one of these students. I commenced the Associate Diploma of Applied Social Sciences (Interpreting for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired) course in 1992. And I loved every minute of it.

I don’t intend nor want to buy in to any political debate, take sides or apportion blame in response to your comments or engage in debate for or against the closure of the course, I simply wish to say this; the last few months have been heartbreakingly difficult for all of us effected by this decision as well has it been for our friends and families who have been supporting us throughout. Therefore I implore that in future postings you be sensitive and respectful in your comments about the A&DSC staff, particularly those who remain and whose aim it is to ensure the current students are able to continue their studies with as little disruption and distraction as possible.
Posting anonymous alleged quotes from interpreters and past students which, let us be honest, are personal and cowardly in nature and shamefully appear at the worst possible time. Staff are incredibly vulnerable at the moment and these barbs are unhelpful, destructive and unnecessary. I implore you to please consider the impact of these remarks and exercise discretion in respect to whether it really is necessary that they be published in a public forum. You ask this of others in your conditions of use, please take your own lead in this matter.

The one last comment I would like to volunteer on this topic before I move on to another, is a very personal one. I felt absolutely crushed walking away from Kangan last Friday. I quite literally ached. I was also really angry that I had been robbed of the opportunity to continue on and support my colleagues and friends until the course as we know it ceases to exist. So having shared that, now try to imagine how hard it was to read those posts relating to the Kangan Auslan course inThe Rebuttal and discover there are some out there dancing on our graves. I was speechless.

In so far as the argument goes about young versus old interpreters, I feel somewhat qualified as a pretty old interpreter to say that I think attitude is everything. I have learned something from each and every interpreter with whom I’ve worked. Lessons can be as simple as ‘don’t ever eat a poppy seed bagel before a job’ or how to sign the ‘Welcome to Country’ as it absolutely should be done. Harking back to the Diploma of Auslan course, it is a foundation that in most cases equips us with language enough to apply to RMIT to study, learn and practise the interpreting component. Once we are qualified and out there, the learning never stops. Every single job, every encounter with someone who is deaf, every chance to work with another interpreter presents the opportunity to learn.

I think we each bring something of our own to this profession and it shouldn’t matter whether the package we bring it in has wrinkles or not! I most certainly have favourites and they are not necessarily all the wisest or worldliest. I get a kick out of working with the interpreters that still have sparkle and some after many, many years at that. I thrive in their company and they remind me why twenty years on, I still leap out of bed in the morning declaring, “Whey hey! Off to work!”. Truly. I do. Life experience is most definitely an advantage but so is a set of fresh eyes or a new take on something. Young interpreters will be old interpreters soon enough.

In regard to the subsequent posting on an interpreter’s entitlement to free speech without fearing loss of income, reputation or opportunity, I want to say that if I were a “learned interpreter” who found my lunch break musings with you about all things Kangan appear quoted on The Rebuttal, I would be seething. I agree that the interpreter who contacted you alarmed because others had assumed she/he had been the one whose comments appeared in your post had cause to be upset. Absolutely! No one wants to be outed for something they didn’t do. I acknowledge that the “learned interpreter” consented to being quoted in your article but I don’t know that they would have consented to the additional detail you supplied that may have lead to the confusion that ensued.

It is very important to be aware that even the smallest bites of information are sometimes detail enough to identify an interpreter (or a situation for that matter). “A few weeks back/ a very senior Auslan interpreter/booked with me/in the lunch break” may be meaningless to the uninitiated but to someone who may have been present at the
appointment/meeting where the exchange took place, knows your agenda or where you are employed and your preferred interpreters or is the agency responsible for assigning the said interpreter, the above details may just be enough to certainly identify the interpreter who made the remarks or at least cause people to assume they know the identity of the interpreter and wonder enough to pursue it – for whatever reason.

A number of controversial opinions were made and appeared in print and I can understand why some would like the person to be made accountable. But the real question that needs to be asked is what lead those who contacted the upset interpreter to believe she/he was the “learned interpreter” quoted in your blog?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute. It took me about four and a half hours because I’m so frustratingly ponderous, a serial micro editor and re-writer but I got to watch an entire stage of the Tour de France as I did so and that was a beautiful thing.

Be good to each other out there.

Dear Rebuttal Readers

We are very proud of The Rebuttal. It has been going now for six years and published 223 articles in that time. In those six years The Rebuttal has received over a million hits and more than that in page views. It is not without influence.

On Tuesday we published what we considered to be a constructive and thought provoking look at the Kangan  Auslan Saga. We suggested among other things that the crisis had provided an opportunity to review and revamp Auslan Instruction to bring it into the 21^st century. We suggested also that the current course fee structures were precluding a number of mature age students who because of their accumulated life experience would make excellent interpreters. We suggested that the Kangan course may have become outdated and now is an excellent time to improve it. We suggested that the VicDeaf entrance into the saga provided an opportunity to fill a void for students wanting to study part-time and this may help in diversifying student intake. Finally we suggested there was scope to include technology into Auslan instruction to make its delivery more relevant and flexible. We considered these suggestions constructive.

This was based on discussions that the author, Gary Kerridge, has had with several interpreters and people over the last few weeks. These interpreters fear speaking out for fear of being victimised. Said one, “If I speak out there is a high chance that some people will muddy my name and it will be impossible for me to work ever again.” What the hell is going on here?

Just half an hour ago from writing this the author received a text message from an interpreter colleague that said in part, “ Can you name the learned interpreter, everyone thinks it’s me and I am getting emails and phone calls from angry people accusing me.” This sort of victimisation is disgraceful and very sad. And all because The Rebuttal raised a few issues that are being said quietly but not openly. These issues are not being raised publicly because people fear victimisation. What a sad community we are living in.

We ask that people re-read The Rebuttal. We believe it has provided some constructive suggestions to improve Auslan instruction. Comments to the article have been generally supportive and understanding. For the life of us we cannot understand why people are angry.

Let it be known that The Rebuttal sees victimisation as a form of bullying and views this very seriously. The Rebuttal is a forum where readers can rebut what the author has written and these rebuts will be published. If you disagree, just write in and say so and put forward an alternate argument. It is that simple.

Lay off the witch-hunt. We have an environment where people already fear speaking out. The Rebuttal will continue to raise issues of importance to the deaf and disability community. What we will not do is name people and have them slandered and victimised when all they have done is speak up because they care.

We have two words for the people who are doing the victimisation … GROW UP. Surely we are all more tolerant than this.

In Victoria Auslan interpreting has been on the front page. Victoria has the only full-time Auslan course on the eastern side of Australia and is facing closure as the result of major Government cuts to TAFE funding. If you are an overseas reader, of which The Rebuttal has many, this is the equivalent of a Polytechnic. The course, which is provided by the Kangan Institute, has been the breeding ground for many interpreters in recent years. Without it, particularly in Victoria, supply of qualified interpreters to meet ever growing demand is not likely to be met. Not that it is now either but without the Kangan courses it is likely to get worse.

The students of Kangan and the Deaf community have been particularly vocal. They have held protests and have managed to get extensive media coverage to their cause. The issue was even debated in Parliament recently which led, for the first time I believe, to an interpreter actually being present on the floor of Victorian State Parliament. Despite all the anger and the doom and gloom the irony of this impending closure of the Auslan course at Kangan is that it has brought with it more attention and awareness about Auslan in the media than possibly ever before. This has been marvellous for the profession of interpreting as a whole and the Deaf community. In fact the whole Kangan saga could be the best thing that has happened for Auslan in many years.

A few weeks back I had a conversation about the Kangan dispute with a very senior Auslan interpreter. The interpreter had been booked for a job for me and in the lunch break we got chatting about what was happening. Startlingly the interpreter was not really a big fan of Kangan. To be more accurate the interpreter was a fan but felt that the Kangan Auslan courses had slipped in recent years. The interpreter suggested that the Kangan course had become outdated. The interpreter also suggested that TAFE course fee structures had meant that students coming in to the Kangan courses were students who could get assistance to pay course fees. (This assistance is essentially a debt that has to be paid back once the student begins to earn over a certain amount.) These students are usualy quite young and not necessarily worldly and experienced in the ways of the world. Interpreting covers many areas of life and this means experience and maturity can be vital components of an interpreters repertoire.

This is not to say that young interpreters are a bad thing it’s more to say that my interpreter colleague was suggesting that the balance has become out of synch. What my learned interpreter friend was suggesting was that there is a great need for older interpreters, experienced in the ways of the world of work and life in general. Such interpreters are familiar with terminology and concepts in a way that the younger brigade is not, simply because of the accumulation of life experience.

Unfortunately because of the fee structure these “older” students are often unable to pay fees upfront or afford the fee assistance which is essentially a loan. The younger ones usually do not have families and mortgages so are more willing to take on the course fee as a debt.  Older and more experienced students often can not get assistance particularly if they have already completed study in another area which, as I understand it, precludes them from any course fee assistance. Older, mature students with families who can get course fee assistance often have mortgages and the like and simply can not afford to take on more debt in the form of course fee assistance. ( Any readers that can explain the course fee issue better than I please do so in the comments section.)

Followers of the Kangan saga will know of the mysterious involvement of VicDeaf and the NSW Deaf Society. It is apparent that these two bodies had been negotiating to set up part time and accredited Auslan courses with the Victorian Government for some time. This was all hush, hush and only became apparent when the Minister outed them. These negotiations may actually be a good thing. If Vicdeaf and the NSW Deaf Society are able to set up these part time courses it may provide an avenue for these mature age students to become interpreters. Many cannot afford to study full-time so a part time equivalent may be the answer for them. Meanwhile, all going well, Kangan can continue with the full time courses although, given the current climate of cost cuts, these courses may be scaled back somewhat. We will just have to wait and see. But an opportunity exists and if handled well could lead to a more flexible delivery of Auslan and a broader student intake. (For people who are confused at the involvement of the NSW Deaf Society in Victoria, their involvement is essential as they are a Registered Training Organisation which is a requirement for providing accredited courses. Vicdeaf are not)

Surprisingly amongst all the support for Kangan there have been rumblings in the background that the Kangan course has become outdated. These rumblings are not just coming from my interpreter colleague. The rumblings suggest that for many years now that Kangan has been delivering the same curriculum with little by way of change to keep up with the changing environment in the Auslan field. If this is the case then the Kangan saga provides an opportunity to completely revamp the curriculum and bring it into the 21st Century. Let’s consider, for example, the use of technology in interpreting. Now Kangan is not technically an interpreter course but it does have an introduction to interpreting component and provides the foundation for many of its students to go on to become qualified interpreters. The use of technology could perceivably be an opportunity to expand the curriculum, if it has not been done already.

Consider Auslan through Skype in interpreting. It could be incorporated into future training. Now Skype interpreting is potentially the biggest growing area of interpreting and this will only get bigger as the National Broadband Network becomes more widely available. As an example I have used Skype interpreting for a conference where interpreters were beamed to a large screen using a data projector. The conference was in Townsville whilst the interpreters had been based in Adelaide. The cost savings in not having to fly interpreters to Townsville was immense. I have also used Skype for large meetings and one on one meetings. It has meant that when I can not get interpreters in Melbourne I have been able to access them in Sydney and Adelaide. Such interpreting requires knowledge to set up the room, establishing the audio, lighting and so on. Sometimes it can be done using mobile modems. Use of mobile modems has its limits which can include black-holes for reception, drop-outs and so on. There are a few things that one can do to lessen the chance of these things happening. Another thing that assists with Skype interpreting is the use of green and blue backgrounds to enhance visuals. All of these things could be incorporated into Auslan and Interpreter training if this has not been done already.

The cheap and ever improving access to video technology also provides opportunities to put Auslan training online. The NSW Deaf Society has already been doing this for sometime now. Skype can be used to link students to practice with each other. There are nae sayers who vehemently reject any form of online training for Auslan.  But why not? All that is needed is that we ensure that there are other parts of the course that require human contact. Never has there been a better time to incorporate technology into the delivery of Auslan training. Online training can provide options for people in rural areas who are interested in learning Auslan and becoming interpreters. The shortage of interpreters in rural areas is chronic.

What the Kangan saga has provided is an opportunity to improve, expand and bring the Auslan training into the modern age. Feedback I have heard suggests that the Kangan training has not moved with the times. There is now an opportunity to modernise it that needs to be grasped with both hands. From the ashes of what might have been Auslan and interpreting training in Victoria can be revamped and improved. Carpe Diem as they say!